Hot Topics:

Bill and Lou: Who lives, who dies, and why

By Marc Bekoff

Posted:
10/21/2012 01:00:00 AM MDT

Bill and Lou are two oxen who have lived and labored in obscurity for the past 10 years on the campus of a small college, Vermont Mountain College (VMC), in a small town, Poultney, in a small state. Recently, college officials announced that as a reward for their long years of service on the college's working farm, Bill and Lou would be slaughtered and served as oxenburgers to students. They would serve as a lesson in sustainability and tradition.

So, why has the story about their impending slaughter rapidly attracted international attention? It's because Bill and Lou are sentient, feeling individuals, with unique personalities, who are condemned to death because they are too old to work and there is a very simple humane alternative to their slaughter. VINE, a sanctuary near VMC, has offered to have them live there for free.

The case of Bill and Lou is not just of local interest. Our relationships with other animals are extremely challenging and paradoxical. Bill and Lou's story is a perfect example of how nonhuman animals (animals) depend on the goodwill of human animals for their very lives. We are the most powerful force on Earth and every second of every day we're making decisions about who lives and who dies. In Bill and Lou's case people who have chosen to kill them argue that because they're old and because they've been close and inseparable friends for so long when one dies the other would terribly miss their workmate and that would be too much for the survivor to handle. Lou has a recurring injury so some at VCM claim both of them should be killed at the same time.

Advertisement

This decision is too convenient, fast, and daft. Would people do this to their companion dogs? Of course not. They would make sure the survivor would have the best life possible. So why do it to oxen?

Some at VMC also argue that sustainability is the main issue but the one-dimensional rhetoric of sustainability, as a colleague puts it, makes for a very weak and impersonal argument. It's estimated Bill and Lou will produce about a ton of beef that otherwise would come from animals living on horrific factory farms also known as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) that have well known and significant negative ecological impacts including air, water, and land pollution. Why use CAFO meat at all?

Because Bill and Lou will have to eat grass during their retirement years and growing and maintaining grass requires water, some say it's best to kill them for reasons of ecological sustainability. It's unlikely they will live very long even in a sanctuary. However, if they were healthy and could work they also would consume resources. Sure, they would also be helping to produce resources, but at some point all living beings will likely consume more than they produce for a wide variety of reasons. The sustainability argument is ludicrous because we're talking about only two oxen, not a herd of oxen.

Some people argue that the resistance to killing Bill and Lou centers on one's meal plan, be it carnivory, vegetarianism, or veganism, and that keeping them alive is really an argument for getting rid of animals in our diet. This isn't necessarily so and it shifts the attention away from the fact that oxen are highly emotional and sentient beings and this is the unnecessary slaughter of two special animals. And it's not euthanasia, or mercy killing, as some claim, because neither Bill nor Lou is suffering untreatable pain according to my sources.

Bill and Lou are a special case. They've worked selflessly for VMC, they are the best of friends, and they have the opportunity to live out their lives in peace and safety. They deserve to live after VMC decides they're no longer useful. The decision to kill them shows how sentient beings are viewed as things, as mere property, to be used by humans for human ends. The details of their case, including that Bill and Lou are unique individuals, are lost in the muddle of impersonal ecological and philosophical arguments. Bill and Lou should be allowed to live a good life until death do them part, and then the survivor should be given the best life possible. Let the heartfelt compassion be used to do something for them as special friends.

Those who favor killing Bill and Lou also argue there is a strong educational lesson. However, think of how much could be learned by factoring deep compassion and their close friendship with VMC and for one another into the fate of Bill and Lou for whom a special case can easily be made. Showing flexibility would be a most valuable lesson. The world isn't linear or black-and-white. There are many ethical lessons here for those who teach humane and compassionate education.

Cruelty can't stand the spotlight that is why Bill and Lou, supposed friends of the college, individuals with unique stories, have touched the hearts of people around the world. Killing them is an unacceptable "thank you" for who they are and for all they have done.

Marc Bekoff is professor emeritus of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Colorado Boulder, and author of numerous books on animal cognition, emotions, and protection. His homepage is marcbekoff.com and, with Jane Goodall, http://ethologicalethics.org

Dye pours in 19 for TrojansSmothering. Confounding. And just a tad frustrating ... at least for the opposition.
Longmont's defense, whether they are playing a 1-3-1 zone, 2-3 zone or man-to-man -- and it can switch from possession to possession -- can give teams fits. Full Story

The Boulder alt-country band gives its EPs names such as Death and Resurrection, and its songs bear the mark of hard truths and sin. But the punk energy behind the playing, and the sense that it's all in good fun, make it OK to dance to a song like "Death." Full Story